Question
Should freedom of expression be curtailed? Give your reasons?
Taslima Nasrin has revoked controversial lines from her book because she was asked to. Should a writer draw a line when writing about sensitive topics or is artistic license a writers right? What do you think?
Answer
I think in any reasonable, realworld application of the idea of freedom of expression, it should be completely unencumbered by any limiting policies.brbrWhat I mean by in the real world is that, of course, if a book were powerful enough to, say, invariably draw its readers to suicide or murder, it should not be allowed. But I think the possibility of words themselves being that immediately powerful on the human mind is very distant in our future, if at all possible.brbrRealworld, functional repercussions are the only ones I could see mattering in terms of censorship. But then you have to contend with what are still realworld impacts, but long term ones. Say, for example, that a child ends up running a militaristic organization against a particular race and the cause was his reading quotMain Kampfquot as a young one? Unfortunately, I dont think we have the capacity to censor that, if we are to otherwise live free. I think the possible, slow, seepinglike repercussions of reading on peoples lives must rely on an otherwise effective society to be shaped.brbrThat is to say, a society such as, say, modern France or Ireland is better equipped to deal with the kind of in my opinion outrageous notions in books like quotMein Kampf,quot because they temper them with the conditioning of far less violent societies than modern America. I am not arguing for the superiority of those countries, simply using them as an illustration of how the slower mindshaping style of books is best dealt with by the mindshaping of other aspects of society, and not ever by the elimination of any free speech itself.brbrNote if it is true that Nasrin flagrantly insulted Muslims for no reason, I agree that removing it was by far the best move on her part, unless those insults had a true and substantial artistic purpose. Generally, blatant insults dont. Regardless, I disagree that someone should not have the right to insult a group... they should have the legal right to, even if it is useless. The idea of making a law against something is a different issue from whether or not that thing is wise or useful.
